THIS BENCH of the Appeals Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 ("the International Tribunal"),

BEING SEISED of the "Motion for Leave to Appeal" filed by Mladen Naletilic ("the Applicant") on 18 September 2001 ("the Application for Leave to Appeal");

NOTING the "Prosecutorís Response to Defenceís Leave to Appeal Against the Oral Decision of Trial Chamber I dated 10 September 2001" filed on 27 September 2001;

NOTING the oral decision of Trial Chamber I of 10 September 2001 ("the Impugned Decision") which denies the Applicantís request to postpone the start of the Trial and allow him an additional two months;

CONSIDERING that the Application for Leave to Appeal was filed pursuant to Rule 73(D) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal ("the Rules") which provides that decisions on motions other than preliminary motions are without interlocutory appeal save with the leave of a bench of three Judges of the Appeals Chamber which may grant such leave:

if the decision impugned would cause such prejudice to the case of the party seeking leave as could not be cured by the final disposal of the trial including post-judgement appeal;

if the issue in the proposed appeal is of general importance to proceedings before the Tribunal or in international law generally;

NOTING Rule 73(B) and (C) of the Rules which provide that:

(B) Subject to paragraph (C) decisions rendered during the course of the trial on motions involving evidence and procedure (including, without limiting the generality of this Rule, orders and decisions under Rule 71, Depositions, and denials under Rule 98 bis, Motion for Judgement of Acquittal) are without interlocutory appeal. Such decisions may be assigned as grounds for appeal from the final judgement;

(C) Trial Chamber may certify that an interlocutory appeal during trial from a decision involving evidence or procedure is appropriate for the continuation of the trial. If such certification is given, a party may appeal to the Appeals Chamber without leave.

CONSIDERING that it is forthe Bench to determine whether a motion is one involving evidence and procedure and thus falling under Rule 73(B) of the Rules, or a motion other than a preliminary motion falling under Rule 73(D) of the Rules;

CONSIDERING that in many instances decisions rendered during the course of a trial involve issues of evidence and procedure, but that in this instance the substance of the Application for Leave to Appeal is directed to the question of the fairness of the trial;

CONSIDERING that the Application for Leave to Appeal was properly filed under Rule 73(D) of the Rules;

NOTING however,that the Application for Leave to Appeal was filed one day late according to Rule 73(E) of the Rules;

CONSIDERING that no request for an extension of time has been filed pursuant to Rule 127 of the Rules;

CONSIDERING that even if the Application for Leave to Appeal had been filed on time it would not have met the requirements of Rule 73(D) of the Rules for the following reasons;

NOTING that the Application for Leave to Appeal submits that the manner in which the Prosecution provided the Defence with the names of its witnesses, the statements of its witnesses, and 17 binders containing potential exhibits did not leave enough time for the Defence to prepare its case adequately;

NOTING that the Prosecution notified the Defence before the commencement of the trial of the names of the witnesses that it intended to call, including the names of the first 10 witnesses notified about one month prior to the commencement of the trial;

CONSIDERING that the Applicant has not presented an arguable case for saying that the names of the witnesses so notifiedby theProsecution were not notified "as early as reasonably practicable" within the meaning of Rule 67(A) of the Rules;

NOTING that it is not contested by the Applicant that the statements of the Prosecutionís witnesses were made available to the Defence within the applicable time and that, in particular, the majority of the witness statements were made available to the Defence prior to June 2000, that is to say, more than a year before the commencement of the trial;

CONSIDERING therefore that the Prosecution has complied with its obligations under the Rules relating to the notification of its list of witnesses and supplying copies of the statements of its witnesses;

CONSIDERING that, the Applicant not having made any request under Rule 66(B) of the Rules, the Prosecution was not required to permit the Defence to inspect any objects in the Prosecutionís custody or control, but that the Prosecution nevertheless disclosed 17 binders containing potential exhibits and that it did so one week prior to the commencement of the trial;

CONSIDERING that any possible prejudice could well be redeemed through the remedies normally available at the final disposal of the trial including post-judgement appeal;

NOTING the Applicantís submission that the Impugned Decision would not allow him to receive a fair trial since the guarantees embodied in Articles 20 and 21 of the Statute of the International Tribunal would be violated;

CONSIDERING however that the circumstances in question are not sufficient to present an arguable case that the fair trial principle is attracted in this matter;

FINDING that the Application for Leave to Appeal was filed out of time and that, in any event, the Applicant has not established that the issue in the proposed appeal is of general importance to proceedings before the International Tribunal or in international law generally;

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS HEREBY DISMISSES the Application for Leave to Appeal.

Done in both English and French, the English text being authoritative.

________________________________
Mohamed Shahabuddeen
Presiding Judge

Dated this twelfth day of November 2001
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.